LexM/S. MUSTAN TAHERBHAI versus COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- __. ' ' [2011] 3 S.C.R. 353 M/S. MUSTAN TAHERBHAI v. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS (Civil Appeal No. 3788 of 2003) FEBRUARY 28, 2011 [D.K. JAIN; ASOK KUMAR GANGULY AND H.l. DATIU, JJ.] A B Customs Act, 1962: Notification nos. 113183-Cus and 133187-Cus - Indian built ship brought in India for breaking C purpose - Leviability of customs duty .:. Vessel manufactured in a Customs Bor.ded Warehouse using certain imported items - When vessel ceased to ply and was grounded, it was auctioned and purchased by the appellant for breaking purpose - Demand of customs duty - Tribunal held that D Notification no.133187-Cus was applicable, and, therefore, the appellant was liable to pay customs duty on the vessel at the time of breaking of ship - Appeal. before Supreme Court ;.... Supreme Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal directing it to first appreciate the facts of the case and then determine E the question of leviability of import duty on an Indian built ship sold for breaking - It directed the Tribunal to take note of a particular judgment of Bombay High Court, special leave petitions whereagainst were summarily dismissed - Tribunal reconsidered the matter and by impugned order dismissed the F appeal holding that on the date of clearance,· notification in force was 113183-Cus and the duty would be payable in terms of the said notification and, therefore, question of applicability , of judgment of Bombay High Court did not arise - On appeal, held: While deciding the case, the Tribunal ignored the G. specific directions issued by the Supreme Court - Therefore, the decision of the Tribunal was not sustainable - Matter remitted to Tribunal for consideration afresh. Judicial discipline: While remanding the matter to the 353 H 354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 3 S.C.R. A Tribunal, Supreme Court gave specific directions to Tribunal to examine the entire legal issue after ascertaining the foundational facts, regardless of its earlier view in the matter - The Tribunal, while deciding the case, ignored the specific directions issued by the Supreme Court - Held: Tribunal 8 erred in ignoring the specific directions of the Supreme Court - Judicial discipline obligated the Tribunal to appreciate the factual matrix as directed. A vessel was manufactured in a Customs Bonded Warehouse using certain imported items. When the C vessel ceased to ply and was grounded, it was auctioned. The appellant, the highest bidder purchased the vessel. The Department levied customs duty on the same. T_he Commissioner (appeal) confirmed the demand. The appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal D held that Notification no.133/87-Cus was applicable in the Instant case, and, therefore, the appellant was liable to pay customs duty on the vessel at the time of breaking of ship. The appellant filed appeal before the Supreme Court. By order dated 30th August, 2001, the Supreme E Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal, observing that the Tribunal did not consider the fact that the vessel was built in India and excise duty was paid thereon at the time of its clearance and, thereby directed it to first appreciate the facts of the case and then determine the question of · F leviability of import duty on an Indian built ship sold for breaking. The Court also directed the Tribunal to take note of the judgment of Bombay High Court, special leave petitions whereagainst were summarily dismissed. The Tribunal reconsidered the matter and dismissed the G appeal holding that on the date of clearance, the notification in force was 113/83-Cus, the provisions thereof would apply and the duty would be payable In terms of the conditions in the said notification and in the light of this finding, the question of applicability of H judgment of Bombay High Court did not arise and the -- -- : MUSTAN TAHERBHAI v. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL 355 EXCISE AND CUSTOM$ plea that the ship was manufactured in India and it A attracted excise duty did not require consideration at all. · The instant appeal was filed challenging the order of the Tribunal. · Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to 8 Tribunal for consid~ration afresh, the Court· · HELD: 1. '.'Vhile deciding the case, the Tribunal ignored the specific directions issued by this Court by order dated 30th August 2001. It is evident from the impugned order that the· Tribunal did not appreciate the C facts in their
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.